View previous stories
	Oversighting Australian Aid by Aid Watch   The Australian government will spend $4.3 billion on foreign aid in 2010-11. Aid spending is often seen as a selfless and philanthropic exercise for the benefit of people in less wealthy countries. In reality, aid is often driven by Australia’s national political and commercial interests.   AID/WATCH has campaigned for 17 years to ensure that aid does not boomerang back to Australian corporations and institutions and is used for projects that meet the needs of communities.   Whilst the Labor Government has made a commitment to increasing the aid budget to 0.5% of GNI by 2015, Australia will still remain a ways off the internationally agreed target of 0.7%. However more importantly, in addressing the effectiveness of the Australian aid program, Australia must not limit itself to increasing the level of its aid but needs to take urgent steps to address the quality of our aid in order to deliver genuine poverty relief and meet the diverse needs of communities.   16 May 2013   NGOs question Australia''s Mining for Development Initiative, by Jemima Garrett. (Radio Australia)   An Australian mineral management initiative is being criticised as benefiting Australian corporate interests more than developing nations.   The $127 million dollar Mining for Development Initiative was launched by Prime Minister Julia Gillard in October 2011.   It''s intended to help developing nations avoid the catastrophic mismanagement, corruption and environmental damage that, in places like Nigeria, has resulted in people being left worse off as a result of their mineral wealth.   The director of NGO AidWatch, Thulsi Narayanasamy, says the initiative is "at best, an expensive exercise in corporate welfare".   "Delivering direct financial and regulatory support to mining companies, and indirect support through ''green-washing'' these companies and rebranding their image as sustainable," she said.   "There''s very few prospects of alleviating poverty and inequality in terms of the image that they''re perpetuating with mining being the solution for developing countries - which there''s very little evidence to demonstrate."   The developing world''s share of mineral, petroleum and gas exports is growing fast.   It accounts for 50 per cent of the global trade - up from 30 per cent in just 15 years - meaning 3.5 billion people now live in poor countries with a significant extractive industry.   For them the resource curse - the poverty, corruption, conflict and environmental damage that so often comes with resource industries - is a real risk.   Oxfam Australia''s Mining Advocacy Advisory Serena Lilywhite hopes the initiative will succeed, but says the development aspects much remain the focus.   "It has the potential to help ensure citizens of resource-rich, but very poor, countries, do get a fair share of their natural resource wealth, and also help reduce their dependency on aid" she said. Visit the related web page
	Politically-motivated murders are not effectively investigated by Thomas Hammarberg Commissioner for Human Rights - Council of Europe   Politically-motivated murders are not effectively investigated – this feeds a culture of impunity.   Assassinations of human rights defenders, investigative journalists, activist lawyers and critical opinion makers have not been seriously investigated in a number of critical cases. These flagrant examples have come to symbolise the phenomenon of impunity, which encourages further murders and has a chilling effect on public debate.   There has been an escalation of such politically-motivated killings during the past decade. The individual tragedies of the victims’ deaths have been compounded by suspicions of cover-ups in their aftermath.   A pattern of impunity   In Ukraine, the September 2000 kidnapping and killing of Georgiy Gongadze, followed by an abject failure to effectively investigate the case, remains an emblematic example of how impunity manifests itself. Incoherency and passivity on the part of successive prosecutors appears to be tied to the fact that some of those implicated in the plot have been or still remain in influential positions.   The investigations into the murders of Elmar Huseynov in Azerbaijan (March 2005) and Hrant Dink in Turkey (January 2007), both prominent newspaper editors, have similarly been unacceptably slow and have pursued too narrow a scope of inquiry. The handling of the Gongadze and Dink cases has already been condemned in judgements from the European Court of Human Rights, while the Huseynov case has now also been brought to the Strasbourg Court.   The case of Natalia Estemirova in the Russian Federation seems to fit a similar pattern. She was abducted from her doorstep in Grozny in July 2009 and later found murdered. Like in most other cases of disappearances and murders in the Chechen Republic, the investigation has encountered serious obstacles, including a lack of co-operation from police and security officials.   Corrosive implications of impunity   These cases have attracted international attention, but there are many other known examples of contract or collusion killings. Those responsible for orchestrating these types of murders appear to be rooted in non-democratic political circles, police or security structures, or criminal gangs – whose interests often overlap.   Justice is not being done in such cases. There is a suspicion that the very persons who order these crimes – or their superiors or proxies – also exercise sufficient influence over the competent state authorities to prevent, pervert, impede or prolong the official investigations, rendering them ineffective.   Strong determination in the fight against impunity is absolutely crucial to deter further crimes, uphold the rule of law and protect public trust in the justice system. Not least, this is a matter of redress for the victims.   Enhancing the effectiveness of investigations   Concerned about the number of serious human rights violations that have not been clarified, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe has adopted concrete Guidelines on measures governments should take to eradicate impunity.   The Guidelines, agreed in March 2011, seek to “prevent and combat an institutional culture within state authorities which promotes impunity”. They stress the importance of effective investigations and define detailed criteria to ensure adequacy, thoroughness, independence, promptness and public scrutiny.   Allied to this principled approach, it is vital that prosecutors, whistle-blowers and witnesses in sensitive investigations are afforded effective mechanisms to guarantee their personal security. It must be made clear that, beyond the punishments that are served to perpetrators, state officials who knowingly tolerate impunity will also be brought to account.   All these measures are obvious in a society where the rule of law prevails. However, we have learned that resistance against accountability efforts can be extremely tenacious – and vicious - in politically-motivated cases. The only true antidote to impunity is to ensure that all the co conspirators are brought to justice – whoever they may be. Visit the related web page
	View more stories